Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.

Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
get an answer. :-)

Good Luck!
Rich

Paul Lutus wrote:[color=blue]
> Jimmy Zhang wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>What I meant was that whether the OS will start reading the file from the
>>second GB, i.e. , reading into the kernel buffer from the starting
>>position of the second GB.[/color]
>
>
> No, with any luck at all, and assuming the OS is written properly, it will
> commence reading within one sector's worth of bytes of the desired target
> position.
>
> Don't top-post, and don't cross-post without an excellent reason (none
> here).
>[/color]

Until I'd read the entire post, I had no idea why you were posting
this. Top posting removes all context from the reply, making the
entire post less readable for most people. Just because you like
top-posting, doesn't make it better, and most people don't like it.
BTW, you should also trim the reply, taking out redundant lines. HTH,
HAND.

--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
So many twits - so little time...
[url]http://www.lasfs.org[/url] [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz[/url]

09-30-2007, 01:44 PM

unix

Re: seek within a large file

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:56:51 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
[color=blue]
> Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
> a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
> bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
> down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
> feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.[/color]

Top-posting is better than bottom-posting, but it's not actually
*good*. Trimmed quotes with interleaved replies is best. (This
message is itself an example.)
[color=blue]
> Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
> one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
> thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
> see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
> get an answer. :-)[/color]

True, as far as it goes. Don't cross-post more than you really
need to. (Some groups - I think comp.os.linux.help may be one of
them - were supposed to be removed years ago. Many news servers
missed the removal, so they still get a fair number of users, but
in theory they are less widely propagated than other comparable
groups - e.g. comp.os.linux.misc - that are formally supposed to
remain in existence.)

09-30-2007, 01:44 PM

unix

Re: seek within a large file

Ed Murphy wrote:[color=blue]
>
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:56:51 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Top-posting is better, because unless you're coming into the middle of
> > a thread, you've already read the rest of what's gone before. People who
> > bottom-post will get skipped over because people get tired of scrolling
> > down through page after page of old crap, just to see what the bottom-
> > feeder^H^H^H^H^H^Hposter has to say.[/color]
>
> Top-posting is better than bottom-posting, but it's not actually
> *good*. Trimmed quotes with interleaved replies is best. (This
> message is itself an example.)[/color]

Which is precisely what is recommended in the "Netiquette Guidelines" in
RFC 1855 ([url]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt?number=1855[/url]).
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Cross-posting is better than multiple posting, because it only puts
> > one copy of the body of the post on the USENET, with references,
> > thereby using its bandwidth only once. Plus, it lets more readers
> > see the question and thread and so on. Ergo, you're more likely to
> > get an answer. :-)[/color]
>
> True, as far as it goes. Don't cross-post more than you really
> need to.[/color]

Also, when cross-posting it is customary to set follow-ups to one
group. Again, see RFC 1855 from the Internet Engineering Task Force.
(You'll note that I haven't set follow-ups despite this being
cross-posted. That's something the OP should have done at the start of
the thread...I really wouldn't know where to direct follow-ups now.)